Maybe BPA Isn’t Bad For You?

I am so confused about BPA. For years I trusted studies that linked the endocrine-disrupting substance—a chemical used to harden plastics like water bottles, as well as to coat cash register receipts and line aluminum cans—with obesity, anxiety and reproductive problems.

For years I trusted studies that linked BPA with obesity, anxiety and cancer. But a new FDA study puts my beliefs about BPA in question.

But before we get to that, let’s review the history: In 2012, the FDA announced a nation-wide ban on BPA in bottles and sippy cups. The following year, California placed the chemical on its Proposition 65 list, officially recognizing it as a reproductive hazard.

In 2013, the UN and WHO called hormone-disrupting chemicals like BPA a “global threat;” shortly thereafter the California EPA office announced that BPA would be added to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity.

But the new FDA study, published in the journal Toxicological Sciences, may affect these decisions. Scientists exposed rats to BPA as many as 70,000 times what the average American is exposed to. And they found no change in body weight, reproductive organs or hormone levels—in fact, there were no biologically significant changes at all. When exposure was in the millions, then the scientists saw hormone-related changes.

When it comes to my children, I follow the Precautionary Principle, which states that, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

Basically, I understand the FDA study in the context of the thousands of other studies I’ve read that raise red flags when it comes to BPA and health—especially for kids. I recommend these six easy steps to reduce BPA exposures.

What do you think? Does this FDA study change how you feel about BPA? What are you doing to reduce exposures? Please leave me a comment below. Thanks!

Comments

Good choice on sticking with the precautionary principle- Sprague Dawley rats are *really* resistant to hormones and not such a great human model in that regard (but they’re great breeders). Fischer or Wistar would have been better options.